You simply take what your government tells you as truth on faith? You've got to be kidding me. Sorry, but the hippie down the street that grows and sells pot is not part of any Al-Quaeda cell as far as I know. Marijuana is not a gateway drug.
I participated in a lot of formal debating twice in two years at a meeting called SOMA (Southern Ontario Model United Nations Assembly) for high school students, but that's about it formally. I've done PLENTY of debating of all kinds on other sites and definitely with friends and family in person.
It's nothing incredible, but it is useful and not as bad as I think the other side makes it out to be. It's good for a situation where you're just checking facebook quickly and instead of having to leave someone a message on their wall you can simply IM it to them through the chat quickly if they happen to be online. Catching up with people I haven't spoken to in a long time that I don't have on MSN is a good thing as far as I can tell. If you don't wanna talk to them, then don't. The notifications of recent activity that come along with the chat are really handy too.
I believe they can co-exist in one's mind, however I also think that making them coexist is deluding yourself and manipulating the religion in to making it so. Science will cast great doubt on the major beliefs of the most prominent religions in the world, and so in this sense they cannot co-exist. However it is very easy to manipulate your own religious beliefs in to something so foreign that it perfectly can coexist with science in harmony, and thus, I vote no.
Depends on the age, but generally, kids know damn well what they're doing even if their parents taught them not to. The parents should NOT be held responsible at all for graffiti, unless in the rare situation where the parent may have encouraged or endorsed it.
Agreed. The democrats are the most socially conscious that are in support of social welfare. This is EXACTLY what Jesus taught. He did not ask the poor if they "earned" the money that the rich may have donated to them. He said if someone asks for something, you give it to them, and if they strike you on the cheek, you offer the other.
I am not necessarily in support of these values as I am not a Christian, however from my objective point of view I do believe that the Democrats represent Christianity best.
As a whole, yes, I believe humanity does not have any general or specific purpose for it's existence. I do not consider any religion to be able to provide such a purpose as none of them have been proven to be true. People's specific lives most definitely do, but that is not the question here. Life is what you make of it.
I wish I could say yes but I'm going to have to disagree. The south's support coupled with the feud in the democratic party between Clinton and Obama makes for a nice threat. They definitely are slipping, but the Republicans are far from dead.
"level of performance" needs to be defined here. As somebody else pointed out machines already destroy us when it comes to specific processes such as mathematics. However, if you mean to be just as intelligent and versatile and conscious as humans, which I assume is the definition in this case, then no. It is not even known as to whether or not consciousness is a product of the human brain (I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm indifferent so far), and therefor it may actually be impossible. However, assuming that it is eventually possible for someone to create such AI, I still don't think it will happen simply because humans won't allow it. There would be no need for an AI so advanced that it needs to be conscious, and the risks involved with building such a being would not be worth it.
No! America is becoming far too religious as it is, and it has not helped improved the country in the slightest, so adding more religiosity to the mess will not help. It's nice that the Pope is thinking of good ol' north America, but the evangelicals aren't very appreciative of it. Separation of Church and State needs to grow, not become non-existent.
"For thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a woman only."
For thousands of years women did not have the right to vote and had very little education and were forced to stay home and have several children.
For thousands of years it was perfectly okay for people to own slaves.
For thousands of years segregation was great, wasn't it?
Do you see my point? Time does not help you here. Oh, and by the way, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, you know, were all delightfully homosexual :)
For you to suggest that alcoholism and homosexuality is even SLIGHTLY similar is actually extremely offensive and your post should probably be reported for saying something like that. Homosexuality is something you are born with. It is not something you can just "change" without incurring some kind of brainwashing. No should even have to feel guilty about it.
On top of that for you to argue against it by using your religion is also embarrassing. First off, prove that your religion is the right one. Actually, prove that your god exists first.
And also, if you love the Bible so much, then do you agree that disobedient children should be stoned to death? That fathers can sell their daughters into slavery? Do you seriously consider the Old Testament to be a good moral guide?
I would not go as far to say that they should "ban" the olympics in Beijing as it would be unfair to all the rigorous training they have gone through for this occasion, however I most certainly do believe they should protest and make their voices heard in all kinds of ways. China should be embarrassed and humiliated by the end of the olympics as far as I care.
Endowed by their creator? There are 1.1 billion people in the world who seem to disagree with the idea that we have a creator. Your entire argument crumbles right from that beginning and until you can provide evidence that proves beyond a doubt that a) such a creator exists and that b) he has given us these rights, the rest of your post is pointless. Do not bring religion into a political, and perhaps even scientific debate.
Also, "Imagine forcing people with religious and other beliefs against abortion to pay for them through their taxes. That is what the government now does if not stopped."
Do you have ANY idea how often atheists and other unaffiliated people in America are forced to pay taxes that end up going to strictly religious causes? Why not attack that? Don't use a double standard here.
I believe it should be legal up to the end of the first trimester, as this is when it is plausible that the fetus will experience pain if it were to be aborted. Before this the "being", if you will, is not conscious nor can it suffer it's destruction in any way, so why is it such a moral issue? If you think it is "human" from the moment of conception then I must assume that you are at least misinformed. A fly is a more complex living thing than a blastocyst (day 3 of pregnancy). It seems to me then that we should make the killing of insects illegal too.
I highly recommend Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" For those here that are fully opposed to any kind of abortion.
Oh please, that is not even close to the same thing. Race is not something you choose to believe in. It is not about logic or rationality, it has nothing to do with the most important questions we have about the universe we live in, it is a choice, and a choice made without any strong evidence.
Religion plays a huge role in it's followers' lives. For many people, especially religious ones, religion is their main guide on morality, it may make them homophobic, or racist, or hateful in all sorts of different ways - so why would I not judge them based on their beliefs? If a Muslim came up to you and explained his hatred of America purely for religious reasons and his hope that innocent Americans die, would you not judge him? Is that not part of religious preference? Same thing if I found out someone was a Jain or a Buddhist. I would judge them as being a peaceful person.
And also take note of the fact that religion plays a solid role in politics all around the world.
Yes, religion absolutely should always be separated from state. Not everyone share's the same beliefs and even if they did none of these beliefs are provable or even testable, so why on earth would we ever put our trust in them politically? We should use reason, logic, humanism and rationality, not superstitious beliefs to guide our countries. It seems to me that some of the highest quality countries in the world are also some of the least religious countries in the world, and the most war-torn poverty-stricken nations are the most religious. As the United State's evangelical activity is increasing, is it possible that the country's position as number one world superpower is coming to an end, and is religion perhaps playing some part in this?
